ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2016
The nomogram conundrum: a demonstration of why a prostate cancer risk model in Turkish men underestimates prostate cancer risk in the USA.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nomograms for predicting long-term overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with primary urethral carcinoma: a population-based study.International urology and nephrology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe utility of a nomogram is based on the patient population it is designed for-and their inherent properties and biases. Our aim was to demonstrate the variability in predictive model accuracy and utility between different populations.
methodsOur model is based on 761 men who underwent initial TRUS biopsy at a single institution in Turkey. Patients were included if they had at least 10 cores on biopsy and PSA level <20 ng/ml. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to develop a new nomogram. External validity was tested with two different cohorts one from another institution in Turkey (N = 136) and cohort from USA (N = 2242).
resultsProstate cancer (PCa) and high-grade PCa was diagnosed in 249/761 (32.7 %) and 101/761 (13.3 %) patients from Ankara, Turkey, respectively. Predictors of PCa were age (p < 0.0001, OR 2.11), PSA (p = 0.044, OR 1.44), PV (p < 0.0001, OR 0.38), %fPSA (p = 0.016, OR 0.72), and abnormal DRE (p < 0.0001, OR 2.05). The predictive accuracy (c-index) of our nomogram was 73 %. C-indices of 71 and 70 % were recorded in external validation cohorts from Turkey and the USA, respectively. Virtually ideal calibration was recorded for the internal validated predictive model, and good calibration was recorded when applied to the Istanbul cohort. However, the model/nomogram underestimates PCa risk in the US cohort.
conclusionThis is the first nomogram predicting the risk of PCa at initial biopsy in a Turkish population and provides a good risk estimation tool with good predictive accuracy and calibration in the Turkish populations. However, our study demonstrates the poor transferability of predictive tools to widely different populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.